S.R. Sravani M. Sreevani R/O Kolar ... vs The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. By Md., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9750 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI

                              ****
                    M.A.C.M.A.No.316 of 2006
Between:

S.R.Sravani @ M.Sreevani,
D/o. S.K.Sreehari,
Aged about 10 years, Minor,
By next friend guardian father S.R.Sreehari,
S/o. S.K.Ramakrishna Bhagavata Shilpi,
38 years, Residing at Gownipalle Village,
Sreenivaspur Taluk, Kolar District,
Karnataka State.                               ... Appellant
             And
The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Musheerabad, Hyderabad.                         ... Respondent

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 20.12.2022

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

1.     Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
       may be allowed to see the judgment?              No
2.     Whether the copies of judgment may be
       marked to Law Reporters / Journals?              Yes

3.     Whether His Lordship wish to
       see the fair copy of the Judgment?               Yes


                                  DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J
                                  2




  * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

                    + M.A.C.M.A.No.316 of 2006

% 20.12.2022
Between:
S.R.Sravani @ M.Sreevani,
D/o. S.K.Sreehari,
Aged about 10 years, Minor,
By next friend guardian father S.R.Sreehari,
S/o. S.K.Ramakrishna Bhagavata Shilpi,
38 years, Residing at Gownipalle Village,
Sreenivaspur Taluk, Kolar District,
Karnataka State.
                                                    ... Appellant
            And
The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
                                                  ... Respondent

! Counsel for Appellant       : Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy

^ Counsel for Respondent      : Sri K.Viswanatham/APSRTC

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

      2020 ACJ 1042
      2010 ACJ 2867 (SC)
      2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
      2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)
      (1965) 1 All ER 563
      2012 ACJ 2694 (SC)
      2022 ACJ 995 (SC)
      2011 ACJ 1 (SC)
      2013 SCJ 2445 (SC)
      (2003) 2 SCC 274

This Court made the following:
                                    3




 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.316 of 2006


JUDGMENT:

This appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been preferred

by the claimant being a minor represented by her next friend

and guardian-cum-father, against the Award dated 11.11.2005,

passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II

Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District,

(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in O.P.No.141 of 2004,

seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as

they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. (a) The facts leading to prefer this appeal, briefly stated, are

that, S.R.Sravani was a bright young girl and was leading a

normal life like any other child. Unfortunately on 10.05.2003 at

about 10.00 a.m., when the petitioner/claimant was about to

cross the road in front of the shop of Rajamma in Gownipalli

Village on Madanapalle - B.Kothakota road, the RTC bus bearing

No.AP 10 Z 2390 being driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner, dashed the claimant and as a result of the

said accident, the petitioner/claimant sustained crush injury to

her both the legs. Immediately, the petitioner/claimant was

shifted to the Government Hospital, Madanapalle, and from

there to S.V.R.R.Government General Hospital, Tirupati for

treatment. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that

the accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent

driving of the offending vehicle (RTC bus) bearing No.AP 10 Z

2390, by its driver and based on the F.I.R lodged by

G.Chennappa, who is a third party and eyewitness to the

accident and resident of Kummarapalle Village, B.Kothakota

Police registered a case in Crime No.45 of 2003 under Section

338 IPC. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was

submitted against the accused driver for having committed the

offences punishable under Section 338 IPC and Section 134(A &

B) read with 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

b) The petitioner/claimant thereupon filed a claim petition

through her next friend, guardian-cum-father S.R.Srihari under

Section 166(1) of the Act, claiming compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/- and it was also pleaded that the guardian had

spent a huge amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards her medical

expenses and other expenses for the injuries caused to the

minor child. It was also pleaded that the petitioner/claimant is

unable to carry on with the work as before, and the injured

could not gain normal health and ultimately she sustained

permanent disability affecting her future prospects. It was also

pleaded that the accident had taken place on account of the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle

(RTC bus) bearing No.AP 10 Z 2390 and claimed compensation

on account of the crush injuries to her both the legs in the said

road accident and she sustained permanent physical disability

of 80%. She being a minor, through her father, filed a claim

petition seeking compensation against the respondent.

c) The respondent-APSRTC appeared through its counsel and

filed a written statement contending inter alia in which the mode

and manner of the accident were denied. It was pleaded that the

accident did not happen due to the rashness and negligence on

the part of the driver of the offending vehicle (RTC bus) bearing

No.AP 10 Z 2390, and in fact, the accident occurred only due to

the negligence on the part of the petitioner/injured, as she made

an attempt to cross the road suddenly at the relevant time. It

was also stated that the compensation claimed by the claimant

is highly excessive, speculative, and exorbitant. Therefore, the

petition is liable to be dismissed.

d) Based on the above pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed

the following issues:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 2390 involved resulting in injuries to the petitioner S.R.Sravani @ Sreevani ?

     2)    Whether   the    respondent    is  liable         to     pay
           compensation? If so, to what amount ?
     3)    To what relief?
e)    In order to establish the claim of the petitioner/claimant,

at the time of enquiry before the Tribunal, the father of the

injured/minor girl viz., S.R.Srihari was examined as P.W.1,

G.Sreenivasulu, who is a third party and eyewitness to the

accident was examined as P.W.2, and the Doctor

M.Sanjeevarayudu was examined as P.W.3 and Exs.A.1 to A.13

were got marked on behalf of the petitioner and S.K.Reddy, who

is the driver of the offending vehicle was examined as R.W.1 and

no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the

respondent.

f) The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire evidence of P.Ws.1

to 3, and placing the reliance on Exs.A.1 to A.13, was of the view

that the accident in the instant case was due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle (RTC bus)

bearing No.AP 10 Z 2390 and on consideration of the above

documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.1,62,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum

from the date of the petition till realization, and the respondent

was directed to deposit the decretal amount within two months

from the date of the award.

g) Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded by the learned Tribunal, dated 11.11.2005 in

O.P.No.141 of 2004, the appellant/claimant has preferred the

instant appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant would submit

that, considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal ought to

have awarded higher compensation. He would further submit

that the compensation under various conventional heads was

also not granted resulting in prejudice to the case of the

appellant. It was further argued that, since the appellant-

claimant has sustained crush injuries on both the legs and

permanent disability was assessed @ 80%, a multiplier has to be

adopted for determining the compensation. But the learned

Tribunal committed an error in awarding meager compensation

without applying the multiplier. It is further submitted, it is

unfortunate that the learned Tribunal has not properly

appreciated the medical evidence available in this case. The age

of the child, and the deformities on her both the legs resulting in

disability, were not duly taken note of by the Tribunal. It is

further submitted that, though it is difficult to have an accurate

assessment of compensation in the case of a child suffering from

disability on account of motor vehicle accidents, having regard to

the relevant factors, precedents, and the approach of various

High Courts, an appropriate compensation on all other heads in

addition to the actual expenditure towards the treatment,

attendant charges etc., should be awarded. It is further

submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

meager and inadequate, and the same needs to be enhanced.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent-APSRTC would

submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was

arrived at, by taking the relevant factors into consideration and

that the amount awarded is just and reasonable. He would

submit that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the

part of the injured while she was crossing the road. He would

submit that the accident did not happen due to the rashness

and negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus. It is

further submitted that the judgment and award passed by the

Tribunal do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and

warrant no interference.

6. In the light of the above rival arguments, the points for

determination in this appeal are:

"1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or warrants interference?"

2. Whether the appellant/claimant has made out a case for enhancement of the amount of compensation and the award of the learned Tribunal is in accordance with the principles of law?"

7. POINT NOs.1 & 2: The accident, involvement of the

offending vehicle (RTC bus) bearing No.AP 10 Z 2390 and the

multiple grievous injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant in

the accident, are not in dispute. A perusal of the impugned

judgment would show that the Tribunal had framed Issue No.1

as to whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle (RTC bus) bearing

No.AP 10 Z 2390 by its driver, to which the Tribunal after

considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the

documentary evidence, at Para No.7 of the judgment, had

observed that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle (RTC bus)

bearing No.AP 10 Z 2390, and as a result, the claimant

sustained multiple injuries. Therefore, I see no reason to

interfere with the findings of the Tribunal that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending vehicle (RTC bus) bearing No.AP 10 Z 2390.

8. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, in

the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish and others1, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India held that the principles with regard to the

determination of just compensation contemplated under the Act

are well settled. Injuries cause deprivation to the body which

entitles the claimant to claim damages. The damages may vary

according to the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant

in an accident. On account of the injuries, the claimant may

suffer consequential losses such as (i) loss of earnings; (ii)

expenses on treatment which may include medical expenses,

transportation, special diet, attendant charges etc., (iii) loss or

diminution to the pleasures of life by loss of a particular part of

the body, and (iv) loss of future earning capacity. Damages can

be pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary, but all have to be

assessed in Rupees and Paise.

9. It was further held, it is impossible to equate human

suffering and personal deprivation with money. However, this is

what the Act enjoins upon the Courts to do. The Court has to

make a judicious attempt to award damages, so as to

compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On

the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very

2020 ACJ 1042

conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also

not be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty

to the claimant. The Court while assessing the compensation

should have regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss

caused by such deprivation. Such compensation is what is

termed as just compensation. The compensation or damages

assessed for personal injuries should be substantial to

compensate the injured for the deprivation suffered by the

injured throughout his/her life. They should not be just token

damages.

10. In the light of the above principles, to award

compensation, it is the duty of the Court to ensure that the

petitioner/claimant is paid compensation that is just. No

amount of money can compensate the child for the injuries

suffered by her. The injured can never be put back in the same

position, however, the compensation has to be determined in

terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Act

requires the determination of payment of just compensation to

the injured.

11. The record indicates that the claimant has suffered 80%

permanent physical disability in a road accident. For the

purpose of understanding the nature of the injuries and their

extent, the evidence of P.W.3-Doctor, M.Sanjeevarayudu, who

issued Ex.A.5/Disability Certificate, would show that he

examined the injured-S.R.Sravani and issued Ex.A.5/Physical

Disability Certificate. The petitioner sustained crush injuries on

both the lower limbs in a bus accident. She was treated at SVRR

Government General Hospital, Tirupati. He further stated, the

injured sustained 90% fixed flexion deformity of the right knee

joint and Equinus deformity of the right ankle. The skin was

replaced by a partial thickness skin graft. There was no useful

function in the right lower limb. There was an Equinus deformity

of the ankle joint of both. The extent of permanent physical

disability is about 80%. Ex.A.5 is the permanent physical

disability certificate issued by him. He further stated that the

petitioner/injured cannot walk. There are chances only to walk

properly if the surgeries are conducted for such deformity. Such

surgeries would cost about Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/-. He

further stated that the injured required attendant all the time

during her lifetime on account of crush injuries sustained by

her. Nothing could be elicited during the cross-examination of

P.W.3 except giving a suggestion that the percentage of disability

as assessed by him under Ex.A.5 is excessive.

12. By taking the evidence into consideration, the learned

counsel for the appellant urged that, since the appellant has

sustained permanent physical disability @ 80%, the multiplier

method has to be adopted for determining the compensation.

This Court finds some force in the submission of the learned

counsel for the appellant. In Arvind Kumar Misra Vs. New

India Insurance Company Ltd.,2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held that the functional disability to be 70%, the loss of earning

capacity was computed according to the multiplier method. It is

also relevant to observe that in the judgments of Sarla Verma

Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation,3 and National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi,4 while replacing the

Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act, it is not made clear what

multiplier would be applied below the age of '15'. In the case of

Kajal (supra), the injured was 10 years of age at the time of the

accident, however, the multiplier '18' has been applied.

Therefore, by taking the guidance from the judgment of Kajal's

case (supra) for the determination of compensation in the

present case, the multiplier '18' shall be applicable.

2010 ACJ 2867 (SC)

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)

13. On perusal of the record, under the pecuniary heads, the

learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount for future loss of

earnings even though the petitioner/claimant sustained 80%

permanent physical disability. The disablement suffered by the

claimant is for the whole life and in the said fact, in my

considered view, the future loss of earnings has to be calculated

by applying the multiplier as stated above.

14. Lord Denning while speaking for the Court of Appeal in the

case of Ward v. James5, laid down the following three basic

principles to be followed in such like cases:

"Firstly, accessibility: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases; otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability: Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to court, a thing very much to the public good."

(1965) 1 All ER 563

15. By applying the above principle, the Tribunal should

always remember that the measures of damages in all these

cases "should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that

she had amply atoned for her misadventure" while emphasizing

the damages must be full and adequate. However, the Courts

must consider to award sums that may be reasonable.

Simultaneously, uniformity in the general method of approach is

also required to award just compensation.

16. In a decision reported in K.Suresh v. New India

Assurance Company Ltd.,6 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

held as follows:

"2.....There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') stipulates that there should be grant of "just compensation". Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine "just compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance."

17. In the case of Abhimanyu Pratap Singh Vs. Namita

Sekhon and another,7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed the

2012 ACJ 2694 (SC)

2022 ACJ 995 (SC)

judgment mentioned below while awarding compensation to the

injured/victim.

12. In the perspective of Indian law, in the case of R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. - (1995) 1 SCC 551, this Court has specified that while determining the compensation for physical injuries, the heads on which the amount of compensation is to be determined, may be of two types, one is of pecuniary damages and another is of non- pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages include the loss of earning, medical attendance, transport charges and other material loss. The non-pecuniary damages include the expenses for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future, loss of amenities of life, loss of expectation of life, inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life which has been followed in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another - (2011) 1 SCC

343.

18. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this

Court feels that the claimant is entitled to the following amounts

under various heads by applying the principles in the case of

Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar,8.

"In Raj Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court has held that award of compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This would include compensation for his inability to lead a full life, enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, as also his inability to earn as much as he

2011 ACJ 1 (SC).

used to earn or could have earned. The WP(C) No.7856/2010 Page 5 Supreme Court further laid down the heads under which the compensation is to be awarded in personal injury cases as under: "(5) The heads under which the compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary Damages (Special Damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

Non-pecuniary damages (General damages):

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of marriage)

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and

(iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads Iii) (b), (iii), (v) and

(vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of marriage), and loss of expectation of life."

19. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court proceeds to

assess the compensation, in the instant case.

20. In the view of the said legal positions referred supra, the

compensation can be assessed under pecuniary heads i.e., loss

of future earnings, medical expenses including future medical

expenses, attendant charges, and also on the head of

transportation including future transportation. Under non-

pecuniary heads, the compensation can be computed for mental

and physical pain and suffering for the present and in the

future, loss of amenities of life including the loss of marital bliss,

loss of expectancy in life, and inconvenience, hardship,

discomfort, disappointment, frustration, mental agony in life.

21. On perusal of the record, under the pecuniary heads, the

learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount for future loss of

earnings, even though the injured has suffered 80% permanent

physical disability as per Ex.A.5/Disability Certificate issued by

the Doctor-M.Sanjeevarayudu. The learned Tribunal awarded

Rs.80,000/- without applying the multiplier towards permanent

disability, which is meager. In Kajal's case (supra), while

assessing the loss of earnings in Para-20, observed that the

Courts below have held that since the girl was a young child of

12 years only, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum

can be taken into consideration. Such notional income is not the

proper way of assessing future loss of income. This young girl

after studies, could have worked and would have earned much

more than Rs.15,000/- per annum. Each case has to be decided

on its own evidence but taking notional income to be

Rs.15,000/- per annum is not at all justified.

22. In the present case, at the time of the accident, the injured

was 10 years old. But, there is no evidence on record to show

that she is prosecuting studies or she is doing any skilled or

unskilled work. Now, she is aged about 29 years approximately.

There is no evidence to show that the injured/claimant is

drawing minimum wages. Due to the injuries sustained by her,

she may not attend either skilled or unskilled work since she

sustained crush injury on both the lower limbs and there is 90%

fixed flexion deformity of the right knee joint and Equinus

deformity of the right ankle. The skin is replaced by a partial

thickness skin graft. There is no useful function in the right

lower limb. There is Equinus deformity of the ankle joint of both

legs and the permanent physical disability is about 80%.

Therefore, by following the judgments of Kajal's and Arvind

Kumar Mishra's cases (supra), this Court is of the considered

view that, since the girl was a young child of 10 years at the

time of the accident, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per

annum can be taken into consideration, is justified to assess the

future loss of income.

23. Therefore, by taking a notional income of Rs.15,000/- per

annum i.e., a monthly income of Rs.1,250/- and after adding

40% for the future prospects, it works out to Rs.1,750/- per

month. Therefore, by taking the guidelines from the judgments

of Kajal and Abhimanyu Pratap Singh (supra), for determination

of compensation in the present case, multiplier '18' shall be

applicable. By applying multiplier '18', it works out to

Rs.3,78,000/- (Rs.1,750 x 12 x 18) under the conventional head

of loss of future earnings. Therefore, under this head, this

Court is of the view to award Rs.3,78,000/-.

Expenses relating to the treatment, hospitalization, medicines,

and transportation etc., are as follows:

24. The learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding

a meager amount of Rs.20,000/- under the heads of medical

expenses, extra nourishment, and other charges. There is no

dispute with regard to the long period of treatment and

hospitalization of this young girl immediately after the accident

on 10.05.2003 and she was admitted to the hospital at

Madanapalle and from there she was shifted to SVRRGG

Hospital, Tirupati for taking better treatment. Thereafter, again

she was admitted to Government Hospital on 06.12.2003 and

was discharged on 02.02.2004. She was inpatient for 58 days

as per Ex.A.9. She was advised to attend the plastic surgery

department and diagnosed with crush injury in both the legs.

Again the injured/child was admitted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,

Bangalore, on 14.03.2005 and was discharged on 05.04.2005.

She was an inpatient in the said hospital for 22 days. As per

Exs.A.9 and A.10, she was in the hospital for 80 days. The

petitioner/claimant produced Ex.A10-medical bills relating to

her treatment and an amount of Rs.19,485/- was spent towards

medical expenses. The parents of the child are labourers, they

are not supposed to be that much meticulous so as to maintain

the bills for any future use. However, P.W.1, the father of the

injured/child, deposed that he spent nearly Rs.1,00,000/- to

purchase the medicines. The award of Rs.20,000/- by the

learned Tribunal towards medical expenses would not be

reasonable. In view of the nature of crush injuries sustained by

the petitioner/claimant, moving around several hospitals as

stated above, definitely they might have spent more amount for

the injuries sustained by her. Therefore, the amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- needs to be awarded to the petitioner/injured

under the head of medical expenses.

25. The petitioner/injured has remained in hospitals on two

occasions for a period of more than 80 days as stated supra,

and must have spent more amount for transportation from one

hospital to the other in Andhra Pradesh and Bangalore. As

such, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has to be awarded under the

head of transportation.

26. When the petitioner/injured sustained crush injuries on

both the legs and 80% permanent physical disability and 90%

deformity, she cannot walk as stated by the Doctor-

Sanjeevarayudu, who was examined as P.W.3. Therefore, extra

nourishment needs to be provided to the petitioner/injured for a

speedy recovery. As such, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- needs

to be awarded under the head of extra-nourishment.

27. The petitioner/injured was in the hospital for 80 days and

she cannot move from the bed. Looking into the nature of

injuries and disability, the claimant requires two attendants

with her for her necessities. Hence, this Court is of the view that

the basic amount for determining attendant charges is very

much needed. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount

towards attendant charges. The petitioner/injured requires

attendants, who though may not be medically trained, but must

be capable of handling the child and she requires two

attendants which works out atleast Rs.250/- per day each when

she was in the hospital for 80 days as stated supra and it comes

to Rs.500 x 80 = Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, an amount of

Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the head of attendant charges.

Pain & Suffering and Loss of amenities:

28. Coming to the non-pecuniary damages, under the heads of

pain and suffering and loss of amenities, the learned Tribunal

has awarded a meager amount of Rs.50,000/-. In the case of

Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance

Company Limited,9 the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with

the issue of the award under this head, held that it should be at

least Rs.6,00,000/- if the disability is more than 90%. As far as

the present case is concerned, the physical disability is 80% due

to which, the young girl might have suffered from severe pain

and suffering. There was no useful function in the right lower

limb and her both the ankle joints were deformed due to the

accident and that the injured/girl cannot walk due to such

deformity. This is a case where the departure has to be made

from the normal rule and the pain and suffering suffered by this

child, is such that no amount of compensation can compensate.

While assessing the compensation in a case like the present one,

the claim can be awarded only once. The claimant cannot come

2013 ACJ 2445 (SC)

back to Court for enhancement of the award at a later stage

praying that something extra has been spent.

29. Therefore, the Courts or the Tribunals while assessing the

compensation in a case of 80% physical disability, especially

where there is a mental disability also, should take a liberal view

of the matter when awarding compensation. While awarding the

amount, the Court should not only take the physical disability

but also the mental disability and various other factors, into

consideration. Since this girl missed out playing with her

friends, she cannot enjoy the pleasures of the life and she will

miss out the fun of childhood, and the excitement of youth.

Therefore, in the particular facts and circumstances of the case,

even after taking a very conservative view of the matter, the

amount payable for the pain and suffering and loss of amenities

of this child should be enhanced. Therefore, this Court is of the

view to award a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under this head.

Loss of marriage prospects:

30. The Tribunal has not at all looked into awarding marriage

prospects and committed an error in not awarding the amount

under this head. Therefore, in view of the physical disability

sustained by the petitioner-injured, an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner/injured under this

head.

Future medical expenses:

31. In the future as this girl grows, she may face many other

medical issues because of the injuries suffered in the accident.

The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under this head.

Keeping in view of the nature of injuries, the child is bound to

suffer a lot of medical problems. P.W.3-Doctor deposed in his

evidence that there are chances to walk properly, if surgeries are

conducted for such deformity, and it would cost about

Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/-. By taking into consideration the

above evidence, it requires to award compensation for future

medical expenses and it would be just to award an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of future medical expenses.

32. In Para-33 of Kajal's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India, observed as follows:

"We are aware that the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed. However, it is well settled law that in motor accident claim petitions, the Court must award just compensation and, in case, the just compensation is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor."

33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appellant is

entitled to the compensation under various heads, as under.

     S.No                     Heads                   Amount

       (i)      Expenses relating to treatment,        Rs. 2,00,000
                Hospitalization, medicines
       (ii)        Extranourishment                     Rs. 1,00,000
       (iii)     Transportation                         Rs. 1,00,000
       (iv)        Loss of future earnings              Rs. 3,78,000

       (v)         Attendant charges                   Rs.     40,000

       (vi)     Pain & suffering, loss of amenities    Rs. 3,00,000

       (vii)       Loss of Marriage prospects          Rs. 2,00,000

       (viii)      Future medical treatment            Rs. 1,50,000
                                                       -------------------
                             Total                     Rs.14,68,000

(-)            Compensation already awarded by the
               Tribunal                                  Rs. 1,62,500
                                                        -------------------
Enhanced Amount of Compensation                          Rs. 13,05,500
                                                        -------------------

This amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from

the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the

amount.

34. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and

others10, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only

upto the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate

(2003) 2 SCC 274

case where from the evidence brought on record, if

Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more

compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such an

award. There is no embargo to award compensation more than

that claimed by the claimant. Rather it is obligatory for the

Tribunal and Court to award "just compensation", even if it is in

the excess of the amount claimed. The Tribunals are expected to

make an award by determining the amount of compensation

that should appear to be just and proper. The compensation as

awarded by the Claims Tribunal, against the background of the

facts and circumstances of the case, is not just and reasonable,

and the claimant is entitled to more compensation, as stated

supra, though she might not have claimed the same at the time

of filing of the claim petition.

35. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the award

passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the

compensation from Rs.1,62,500/- to Rs.14,68,000/-.

36. In the result, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the

compensation from a sum of Rs.1,62,500/- to Rs.14,68,000/-

with interest @ 7.5% per annum and with costs from the date of

the petition till the date of realization against the respondent

(APSRTC).

The respondent (APSRTC) is directed to deposit the

compensation amount within two months from the date of this

judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against the

respondent (APSRTC).

The appellant/claimant shall pay the requisite Court-fee in

respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and above the

compensation claimed.

The appellant/claimant is directed to file an appropriate

petition before the Claims Tribunal to declare her as major and

after declaring her as major and after discharging her father

from guardianship, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the

entire compensation amount with accrued interest.

The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands

modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions

as above.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for

consideration, if any, shall stand closed.

JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA Date: 20.12.2022 L.R.Copy to be marked.

Dinesh

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

M.A.C.M.A.No.316 OF 2006

20.12.2022

L.R.Copy to be marked.

Dinesh